Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Unclear on the Concept

Amberwatch Alert Foundation claims that they're all about keeping communities safe, however they seem to be unclear on the concept of safety. As Breda points out, they say, "you don't need a gun to protect your kids." Yeah, you don't need a fire extinguisher to put out flames either, but it's the most effective tool for the job.

Here's what Amberwatch Alert Foundation CEO Keith Jarrett has to say,

"The more parents that sign up, the more eyes and ears we will have armed with the information and power to fight back against child predators!"

Kitty Genovese had plenty of eyes and ears around and that didn't help her fight back nor save her life.

What Mr. Jarrett and his foundation are really about is giving people a false sense of security. Their feel-good bubble will burst the moment some violent predator walks into their community and harms one of their own.

This "Amberwatch Alert" is no more than a glorified tech version of the neighborhood watch. People will sign up for it and "feel" safe. Then soon we'll hear another sobbing woman crying "This is a nice neighborhood, things like this just don't happen here!" She and her fellow residents will appear shocked as their ideology is crushed by the harsh reality that violent criminals are animalistic, opportunistic predators. The wolf has no regard for the safety of the sheep.

Notice the use of the terms "armed," "power," and "fight back." Clearly Mr. Jarrett's living in some idealistic fantasy. Perhaps he using leftist speak? No one is armed, empowered, or measurably better equipped to defend themselves because they signed up for a silly alert system.

Sure, information isn't a bad thing. Informed citizens can make better, more rational decisions about their personal safety. That said, "arming" people with information does not enable them to fight back against violent crime. Fighting back would involve stopping, or at least deterring such an attack. An alert system won't stop a child predator, a rapist, or a junkie with a knife looking for cash for his next fix. A gun might not stop them either, but at least it's a reality-based, actionable solution aimed towards being safe rather than "feeling safe."

You want to fight back? Take Jeff Cooper's advice about the proper response to predatory violence.
“One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that ‘violence begets violence.’ I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure—and in some cases I have—that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy."

When I'm out of options and it's my family or my own life on the line I'll take multiple jacketed hollowpoints over harsh words, an alert system and a cellphone.

Choose your weapon, do so wisely, and as a wise woman once said,

"Carry your gun -It's a lighter burden than regret."

1 comment:

Sabra said...

Things like this piss me off.

The school my daughters attended last year had a system in place where, for the month or so they actually used it, you had to hand over a TXDL or state ID to be scanned to check & be sure you weren't a sex offender. It was clearly a feel-good measure and nothing more, but from the way the principal reacted when I called him on it, you could tell no one had questioned him before (this wasn't the first school he'd put this in).

Systems like that (much like gun control laws) assume that criminals are going to jump through hoops. They don't. (Meanwhile, the school would hand kids over to whoever came to the gate at pick-up to ask for them, without verifying whether they were on the list to do so.)

Systems like Amberalert Watch make the equally erroneous assumption that kids are highly likely to be nabbed by known sex offenders. Does it happen? Heck yes. Are more kids still victimized by family members and friends? DUH. But this relieves you of having to think about that.

Evaluating the risks and guarding against the likeliest is so overrated, eh?